Structural Coordination in Design-Build vs. Traditional Procurement
The coordination of structural elements is a critical aspect of any construction project that directly impacts both timeline and budget outcomes. Different procurement routes offer varying approaches to structural coordination, with design-build and traditional procurement each presenting distinct advantages and challenges for structural engineering teams.
Key Highlights
Here’s what you need to know about structural coordination across different procurement methods:
- Design-build procurement typically enables earlier structural engineer involvement, facilitating proactive coordination
- Traditional procurement often creates sequential workflows that can delay structural integration
- BIM collaboration is 30% more effective in design-build environments
- Early contractor input in design-build can reduce structural coordination issues by up to 40%
- Traditional procurement may offer more design refinement but requires additional coordination effort
Structural Coordination Process in Design-Build
The design-build procurement route offers a fundamentally different approach to structural coordination compared to traditional methods. In this model, structural engineers typically join the project team earlier, working alongside architects and contractors from the concept stage. This integrated approach enables structural considerations to be incorporated into the design from the outset, rather than retrofitting structural solutions to an established architectural vision.
The collaborative environment of design-build projects facilitates real-time problem-solving between disciplines, with structural engineers able to highlight potential issues before they become costly changes. Statistics from UK construction projects show that early structural coordination in design-build procurement can reduce change orders by up to 33% compared to traditional routes. Additionally, the single-point responsibility inherent in design-build contracts encourages collective ownership of coordination challenges, with structural engineers, architects, and builders sharing information through common platforms and regular coordination meetings.
Coordination Workflow Benefits
The workflow advantages in design-build procurement create measurable benefits for the structural coordination process. With all team members working under a single contract, communication barriers are significantly reduced, enabling structural engineers to provide input on constructability issues during early design phases. This concurrent engineering approach means structural systems can be designed with installation methods in mind, reducing the risk of coordination conflicts during construction.
Research by the Institution of Civil Engineers has demonstrated that design-build projects typically experience 40% fewer requests for information related to structural systems than traditionally procured projects. The condensed timeline characteristic of design-build allows structural engineers to focus on value engineering opportunities within the structural system, often resulting in more efficient designs. When coordination issues do arise, the unified team structure enables faster resolution, with decisions typically made in days rather than the weeks that might be required in traditional procurement where contractual boundaries can impede quick solutions.
Technical Integration in Traditional Procurement
Traditional procurement follows a more sequential approach to structural coordination, with distinct design and construction phases. Structural engineers typically become involved after the architectural concept has been substantially developed, which can create challenges when integrating structural systems with the established design intent. The separation between design and construction teams means that structural coordination relies heavily on comprehensive documentation and formal communication channels rather than direct collaboration.
This procurement route does offer advantages in terms of design refinement, as structural engineers can develop detailed solutions without the time compression often found in design-build projects. The formal review periods built into traditional procurement provide opportunities for thorough checking of structural coordination issues. However, these benefits come with increased coordination responsibility for the structural engineer, who must ensure their designs align with architectural intentions while anticipating construction methods that will be employed by contractors not yet appointed. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, traditional procurement projects spend approximately 15% more time on coordination activities than equivalent design-build projects.
BIM and Coordination Technologies
The effective use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) presents different challenges across procurement routes when managing structural coordination. In design-build environments, BIM adoption tends to be more uniform across disciplines, with all team members working within compatible systems from project inception. This enables structural engineers to identify potential clashes with architectural and MEP elements earlier in the process, reducing costly site-based coordination issues.
Traditional procurement often sees different BIM capabilities and standards across the design team and later-appointed contractors, requiring more extensive coordination protocols. Research published by the Chartered Institute of Building indicates that BIM-enabled structural buildability reviews in traditional procurement typically occur 40% later in the project timeline than in design-build projects. While both procurement routes benefit from coordination technologies, design-build environments generally achieve more integrated model development, with structural models more quickly reflecting real-world construction constraints due to early contractor input.
Project Outcomes and Coordination Success
The different approaches to structural coordination between procurement routes ultimately manifest in measurable project outcomes. Design-build projects typically demonstrate fewer structural coordination issues during construction, with UK industry data showing an average of 23% fewer site-based structural clashes than traditionally procured projects of similar scope. This reduced coordination friction often translates to more predictable construction schedules, with design-build projects completing structural elements on average 15% closer to planned durations.
The financial implications of structural coordination are significant, with research from the University of Reading indicating that the cost of resolving structural coordination issues during construction can be up to five times higher than addressing them during design. While traditionally procured projects may benefit from competitive tender pricing, they typically incur more coordination-related variation costs during the construction phase. These variations often arise from the disconnection between structural design intent and construction methodology, highlighting the importance of structural inspections during construction to catch and resolve coordination issues quickly.
Client Considerations for Procurement Selection
When selecting between procurement routes, clients should carefully consider how structural coordination requirements align with their project priorities. Projects with complex structural systems or tight construction schedules typically benefit from the integrated coordination approach offered by design-build procurement. The early involvement of structural engineers in this route enables more proactive coordination and often results in more buildable solutions.
Traditional procurement remains advantageous for projects where design refinement is prioritized over speed, or where clients have established relationships with specific structural engineering firms they wish to appoint directly. In these cases, additional coordination measures should be implemented to bridge the gap between design and construction phases. These might include enhanced BIM protocols, early contractor advice, or dedicated coordination workshops to ensure structural integration is maintained. The Construction Industry Council recommends that clients with limited construction experience should factor in additional coordination resources when choosing traditional procurement, recognizing that more client-side management will be required to achieve the same level of structural integration that occurs more naturally in design-build environments.
Conclusion
The approach to structural coordination varies significantly between design-build and traditional procurement routes, with each offering distinct advantages and challenges. While design-build typically enables more integrated coordination through early involvement and collaborative working, traditional procurement can provide opportunities for more detailed design development with appropriate coordination measures in place. Understanding these differences allows project teams to implement appropriate strategies for successful structural integration regardless of the chosen procurement route.
Sources
- Chartered Institute of Building – Procurement in the Construction Industry
- Institution of Civil Engineers – Procurement Routes and Coordination
- Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors – Procurement Guidance
- Constructing Excellence – Procurement and Integration
- University of Reading – Construction Procurement Research